The Holship ruling of the ECtHR and the protection of fundamental rights in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The status of trade union rights in the EU has been contentious since the CJEU sent shockwaves through the trade unions of Europe in December 2007 with its rulings in the cases of Viking and Laval . In its recent Holship ruling, the ECtHR has challenged these rulings. Contrary to the assertion of the CJEU in Laval that it is inherent in the very exercise of trade union rights and the right to take collective action that they will be prejudiced to a certain degree, the ECtHR stated that “the degree to which a collective action risks having economic consequences cannot (…) in and of itself be a decisive consideration in the analysis of proportionality under Article 11”. This has potentially wide-reaching implications for the relationship between the human rights recognized in international human rights conventions and EU fundamental rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".